


s 











r , 





. • ^^dawSLi*'■ •' ■ ^^i’ 7 '. 


fr. 


'*%j'-. -?4 ; 



1^ 


f / 


D*C 



m^: 


<**! 




7. . ..’ .*1) 

* • ^ ' T 


< vv 


'j*' 

,":’ 3 i''. ■ 


i . 


• 4 ,4 • ;*t 

•" .\ I i 

i / * * .V7 


^ * ■> 


< ) 


♦> 


f 


.4> 


f: fV 




' , I /•■• .'. 

'-•j I I I 



■» ■ 


.V( 


>' t'iO 

r. • 




ilSt’ 






I ^ . V... 






4 r . #-^'.11 


i > 








rfC^ • ^¥p/•' 


* :■« Uv'rl 

<1 


»LrU,. e ^ . 


*^/h 


'Ife 


‘ I* 




• ^ 




IT s* 


'A; 




■ * ''. 




> 0 


'^■ 


fc,r 

f. ’* ,t 


1 i 


3l-' ■ 


f 




A 


/• / 
^ ♦ Pr » 


7:» 


?-ji.' 

. ,« A 

r4' 



v* ,'■• ’ j\ -'J^r . r-^ 


<v 




K>'' 




fw) f r- 

^ifV **^PNKfr •. 

. ^ ■SJfis ’ 



y\ 




• • $ 


^..x’ »■' ^ ^^; -'" ^'v 

* rV ^ A A - ■ , 







'5ft 

■ 4 • '•■- 

-.- • iTBL r.. 

■■.k-’ ■> 





K ^ 


'•. v'f 

^. VITTj^v. 

. *- > "r 



i. 




7» 


. >‘-1^ 


' ^ 

* N- 



r. 


jy ’ '■ ' •' '■'' 

i* if 


: 


« ^ 


• v,-:- 

'■ li 









:^ikr 


•*. f* 


i * 


» f ►M' 


* t.v# 






V, 



V 

* lV 


'4k‘t‘ i 




t _•« 


1 < •'■• ^ 

I* «. k I ' 

r V^Mr*T7U I ^ { 















1--^ ^ C! ■' ^ ' 

,*i‘ ■■ ■ • '^*^v ■* oiLp;- '■' - ■ - Tk^* ' '■ •, I’-C" • ^ ' ■ . ■ ' - < V. ■" 

L ' i \ ■ kf> ' 

T‘ kl . • . * t ■ . •* " « .1.- • . . * Lm . ' • . t Jdt . _ U— _ 


> t 


.'■X: ' 


WJ^:,:,‘!»,'f< ■ 'C -'v* 



iM* 


^ ATTa * 


'U-, Jtv's •*■ '■'■ 

• . T-* ' ■ »* * ' '’■■• .V. J 

M i * ■ . ; ■ • if 4. " 






■; ‘jrf'V /* ■ 

fcS'v Tm •' »V'* K ^ »t , * 4 .' 

“*1: .'',1. •■ 


t3k* 


';: J. - ..y^ .;.Vx 

■ ■ '■"V^.W -‘''f, ’ 


> ■*' 


Sff,v%A-:.', ■ ^■'■^ly : 


. '*> 


WrwtP^x t ', ''• '*• 

^ *• - V 

: • •! •, / 




A , <•- 4 

/ t’V ' 




* iAhA *'71 

'*iW^ ^ , :V" i 

.••’y‘ V" V ;-r I 

^■f"> • * 



h * 


-V - 4' > * 

-.1 • 


?'■ "mmMk ■ ^ .•■■■‘■/:.. ■ : ^ ^ 

'i '* 'I . »1!««'•' ‘ ^ ^ *'\r^ ‘v ll 



■ ' 


, I ''■ ' ■ "''iil, 

• • • -, • J 


‘ t .l* ^.i. '•jm . i‘^r 



V •■ 


^ ‘ • 


1-1* 


ma 






** M 


t: 


■Vl 




■^- T " X"' 

Wfr ■ m 




, ‘ •«« 




i'ij ’' ^ 

V ., .* u) 

«. k 





ii ■ 


,* 


. *714 I 1^ Jr*' • > foil ?i • _ -4 

^■- '.^ .•^^■l:^,..^'':k/ ty\- ■r- 'Xy:'<\ 


.( 


I f 


-■/y"' •' v/T 

j'' . . • '"ji** '*'S 

;a.'> ^ 


S'*,--*- 






I'i 


K- 




• r -■; 




■»• 


I 










SPEECH 


or 

0 B D E N, 

K 


ON THE 


FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT,” 


THE HOUSE OP COMMONS, 


Ebidat, April 24th, 1863. 


LONDON: 

WILLIAM EIDOWAT; 169, PICCADILLY. W. 
1863. 


Price One Shilling. 










S> 




t_ (a 


. C Cx- 


^ f 


• \ 


i\ 


:) 






< • •. 


V I 



r 


!■ ^VWV 

4 


\r 


I • / 


• 4 i 




' /\ 



% 

'1 h i ^ . r » t4 l 



''1^ 


1 » 




. 1 »• 


4 


■ 


I 

*(r 


li 





ii- 


'» ( 





1 


■V- 

?■ 




ll. 


4'^t> \ 

*> C 


HI 


♦' 

n 


f 

^ V . , 



, : • > O 

I '-''V ’' 

ifUliy 'f Vi 

1/4- ■• ' , •*. U.'. 



' 1 












. i A I 




SPEECH. 


Mr. Cobden :—Sir, the leg’al points that have been 
discussed in connection with the subject before us 
are undoubtedly of the greatest importance^ but I 
apprehend that no one will expect that any prac¬ 
tical result will arise from this passage of arms 
between gentlemen learned in the law in this House 
upon a question which is now pending before the 
law courts. When the Hon. Member for Liverpool 
gave notice of his motion^ I had no idea he could 
have contemplated any such result, or that he could 
have wished this question to be confined to the mere 
technical aspect which has been sought to be given 
to it. I think a larger and more important ques¬ 
tion is before us,—because it is not merely the vessel 
now under consideration that public report charges 
with being intended to commit a breach of the sta¬ 
tute law. It is said there are many vessels now 
building with the same object in view, and I appre¬ 
hend that this is a proper time, in the interests of 
this country,— in the interests of this country and 
no other country—to offer a few remarks upon this 
subject. I say the interests of this country, be¬ 
cause we are constantly met by phrases such as 
^^You are consulting American interests^’—^^you 

A 2 



4 


are neg*lecting* the honour of Eng-land/' I wish 
to consider the British interest in my observations 
on this Foreigfn Enlistment Act; and I will consider 
no other interest 3 and I maintain; at the outset; 
there is no other country in the world that has a 
quarter—I say deliberately a quarter—the interest 
which we have in upholding the S3^stem of interna¬ 
tional law on which this Foreigm Enlistment Act is 
based. 

NoW; Sir, the Hon. Member for Liverpool has— 
as was done by the Solicitor-General on a former oc¬ 
casion—introduced another topic which has tended 
to confuse the public mind here and out of doors, 
and the world over, as to two questions which are 
totally distinct. The Hon. Member has referred to 
the practice of bu3ung’, and selling', and exporting' 
arms and munitions of war. There is no law in 
this country that prohibits the buying' and selling, 
or manufacturing; or exporting, arms and munitions 
of war. It has been trul3^ said by the Hon. Member 
for Plymouth, and by the Solicitor-General, that 
there was no country which had furnished such 
high authorities upon the subject as America itself. 
From the time of Jefferson, who, in that admirable 
passage read by the Hon. Member for Plymouth, 
exhausted the whole argument in a few lines, down 
to the present time, every great authority in that 
country has laid down and acted upon the doctrine, 
that a Government is not responsible for the deal¬ 
ings of its subjects in arms and munitions of war. 


5 




They carry them at their own risk if they attempt 
to run a blockade, but the Government is not res¬ 
ponsible, and it never oug*ht to be made the subject 
of diplomatic communication or complaint. I am 
astonished that Mr. Adams, and Mr. Seward, should 
have introduced that question into their corres¬ 
pondence upon the subject of furnishing' ships of 
war. I will not say I was astonished at Mr. Se¬ 
ward, because one who writes so much, must write 
on every subject, and is in danger of writing on 
every side of a subject; but I am astonished that 
Mr. Adams should have mixed this subject up with 
what is really a vital question, — that of furnishing 
or equipping ships of war. 

There is only one reason why I am not sorry 
that Mr. Adams has touched upon that subject. 
Tie has alluded to large and systematic opera¬ 
tions being carried on in this country for sending 
arms and munitions of war to blockaded ports. That 
involves the risk of being seized by the cruisers of 
the Federal States, and as the only tribunal for 
punishing those who violate the blockade is in the 
hands of those who are maintaining the blockade 
(and we know the blockade is violated systematically 
—we know there are joint-stock companies to do it), 
as the only authority that can confiscate that pro¬ 
perly is the Federal Government through its prize 
courts, and the only police that can seize those who 
violate the law of nations are the Federal cruisers, 
it is w ell this country should know what is going on. 


6 


Because^ if in the crowd of steamers now found for 
the first time carrying* on trade in the West Indian 
waters^—thoug'h no steamers were required for that 
commerce a few years ago, when we had to pay 
£250,000 a year for a line of steam-packets for the 
conveyance of our letters,—if in the crowd of those 
vessels, eager to violate the blockade, the innocent 
should suffer with the guilty, Mr. Adams has per¬ 
haps so far rendered a service, by showing that his 
Government are entitled to some forbearance if one 
or two innocent vessels should be subject to deten¬ 
tion by their cruisers. (No, no.) I am not going 
into the subject of the blockade now. I promise 
that I will deal with that question separately another 
time, and I shall be just as ready to meet your 
arguments on English grounds then as I am on 
the question now before us. 

Now coming to the real and only question before 
us,—the infringement of our own Foreign Enlist¬ 
ment Act,” what are the grounds on which I desire 
to see the Government exercise the utmost vigilance 
in preventing the violation of that law ? It is be¬ 
cause we, of all other countries, have most at stake 
in seeing that the law is observed. And how do I 
expect to see the Government supported—how do 
I hope to see the public sanction a vigilant observ¬ 
ance of that law, but by making clear to the House 
and to the country that the Americans have claims 
on us for the due observance of that law, inasmuch 
as it will be only extending to them a fair recipro- 


7 



city, for the honourable neutrality which they at 
all times exercised towards us when we were in a 
position to require it at their hands? (Cries of 
Oh !” and No/^) I am g*lad some hon. g*entlemen 
dissent. I like to hear opponents say No.” Now, 
will they listen to me, and when they have listened, 
I will challenge them to search the records of our 
State papers to show an instance of a diplomatic 
despatch having* been written complaining of an 
unredressed grievance under the American Foreign 
Enlistment Act. 

Now what does history say of the conduct of the 
Americans with reference to this system of internationl 
legislation ? My hon. friend the Member for Ply¬ 
mouth has stated truly that all the legislation that 
has taken place in America, on the subject of foreign 
enlistment, was at the instance and in behalf, 1 may 
say, of European Governments. I will add that in 
the majority of cases it was at the instance and for 
the benefit of England. Take the first law passed 
in 1794. I am not going to dwell on historical 
subjects, or to repeat the familiar history of Mr. 
Genet and his proceedings in 1793-4; but the pass¬ 
ing of that Act so remarkably illustrates the good 
faith of the American Government that it cannot be 
passed over without notice. The United States had 
then been but ten years an independent nation, 
owing its independence mainly to the assistance 
given by France. In the course of these ten years 
France had gone through a revolution ; it had be- 


8 


come a sister Eepublic; and it sent out an envoy to 
America, claiming* assistance, and applying for the 
right of fitting out cruisers in American ports. It 
was against England, the old enemy of both, that 
it sought this advantage. What was the conduct 
of America under these circumstances, the most 
trying that could be imagined ? Why, we all know 
that it required all the moral power of Washington 
to enforce the law. Not the law of America, for 
they had no law. The Americans had no foreign 
enlistment act, but they put themselves under the 
common law of England, or what Washington in 
his proclamation called international law, and they 
gave us all the protection which they now ask us to 
give them. In 1794 they passed a Foreign Enlist¬ 
ment Act, and at whose instance ? I will not weary 
you with long extracts or historical references of 
my own: I will give you the words of an English 
statesman, whose statement will, probably, be heard 
with some respect on the other side. Mr. Canning, 
speaking on the passing of our Foreign Enlistment 
Act in 1819, said : 

In 1794 this country complained of various 
breaches of neutrality committed on the part of 
citizens of the United States of America. What 
was the conduct of that nation in consequence? 
Did it resent the complaint as an infringement of 
its independence ? Did it refuse to take such 
steps as would insure the immediate observance of 
neutrality ? Neither. In 1794, immediately after 


9 




^^the application from the British Government^ the 
Leg-islature of the United States passed an Act^ 
prohibiting-^ u^ider heavy penalties^ the engage- 
ment of American citizens in the armies of any 
belligerent Power 

That was not the entire scope of their Act^ for it 
embraced the provisions of our own Act regarding 
ships of war as well. Such is the recorded state¬ 
ment of Mr. Canning. 

I come now to the second case^ in which the 
Americans not only enforced but amended their 
Foreign Enlistment Act^ at the instance of a foreign 
country. In 1818, the Spanish American Colonies 
were in revolt against the mother country, and there 
was a strong feeling of sympathy in the United 
States for the colonists. There was a similar feel¬ 
ing in this country:—we generally sympathise with 
everybody's rebels but our own. Mr. Canning and 
Lord Castlereagh brought into this House in 1819 
a Foreign Enlistment Bill, which was intended to 
make provision for the more faithful observance of 
our neutrality towards the Spanish American colo¬ 
nies. The measure met with great resistance from 
the Whig party. Sir James Mackintosh and others 
opposing it. I will read an extract from the speech 
of Lord Castlereagh, whom even the gentlemen op¬ 
posite, below the g’angway, will probably admit as 
an authority. In 1819, wishing to find an argu¬ 
ment that would tell effectually with his Whig op- 
ponentSj he said: 


10 


It was a little too much in the hon. and 
^Mearned gentleman (Sir James Mackintosh) to 
censure the Government of this country as being 
‘^hostile to the South Americans and partial to 
Spain, while we had delayed doing what another 
government, which he would allow to be free and 
popular, had done long ago. He would ask him, 
had the United States done nothing to prevent 
their citizens from assisting the South Americans? 
They had enacted two laws on the subject, nearly 
of the same tendency as that now proposed.^’ 

Not only is it true, as stated by my hon. friend 
the Member for Plymouth, that the American Go¬ 
vernment passed their Foreign Enlistment Acts at 
the instance of European countries, but there is this 
remarkable fact in proof of their good faith, that 
they passed them in opposition to the sympathies, 
and even to the supposed interests of their own peo¬ 
ple. In every one of the three cases I have to 
refer to, the Government acted in direct hostility to 
the popular sympathies of the time, and it required 
all the influence of leading and authoritative poli¬ 
ticians to carry those measures. 

I now come to the strongest case of all, and I am 
about to summon as a witness the Noble Lord at the 
head of the Government. Most of us are old enough 
to remember the rebellion which broke out in Ca¬ 
nada in 1837. In January, 1838, when Parliament 
met, we were in a state of great apprehension with 
reference to the condition of things on the North 


American continent. That apprehension was not 
so much with respect to the rebellion of our own 
colonists, as on account of what was passing on the 
frontier of the United States, in consequence of the 
great excitement which was prevailing there. The 
border population was sympathizing strongly with 
the rebels, and the danger that we felt was that that 
state of things might lead to a collision with the 
United States. Soon after this House assembled 
Sir R. Inglis, interpreting the general anxiety of 
the country, rose to ask the Noble Lord who is now 
at the head of the Government, but who was then 
Foreign Secretary, whether he had any objection to 
state what were at that moment the relations be¬ 
tween Mr. Fox, our representative at Washington, 
and the Government of the United States. Lord 
Palmerston replied that, fortunately, he was able 
to give very exact information, having the day be¬ 
fore received a despatch from Mr. Fox, — from 
which we may conclude that Sir R. Inglis and the 
Noble Lord were agreed, beforehand, that the question 
should be asked. The Noble Lord went on to de¬ 
scribe the excitement and agitation which prevailed 
on the frontiers of Canada, how the rebels had taken 
possession of a place called Navy Island, how they 
had flocked there and been joined by citizens of the 
United States, how arms had been furnished to 
them, and how there existed, in fact, a most dan¬ 
gerous state of things. The Noble Lord stated that 
Sir Francis Head, the Governor of Canada, had 


12 


sent a despatch to Mr. Fox, the British Minister at 
Washington, complaining of these most unfortunate 
and alarming occurrences, and continued :— 

Mr. Fox immediately communicated these facts 
^^to the President of the United States, and received 
^^in reply a most friendly communication. In the 
first instance he had a verbal communication from 
Mr. Forsyth, the United States Foreign Secretary, 
containing an expression of sentiments such as 
might be expected from the friendly spirit of the 
United States Government, and the high sense of 
honour by which that country has been actuated 
^^in its dealings with foreign countries. On the 
5th ult. Mr. Fox received a note from Mr. For- 
syth, in which was a passage to this effect,—^ That 
^ all the constitutional powers vested in the Exe- 
^ cutive would be exercised to maintain the supre- 
^ macy of those laws which had been passed to 
^ fulfil the obligations of the United States towards 
^ all nations which should unfortunately be en- 
^ gaged in foreign or domestic warfare.' In addi- 
^^tion to this assurance that all the powers now 
vested in the central Government should be used 
to preserve neutrality, the President, on the 5th, 
sent down a special message to Congress, stating 
that, though the laws as they stood were quite 
sufficient to punish an infraction of the neutrality, 
^^they were not sufficient to prevent it, and asking 
Congress to give the Executive further powder for 
‘^that purpose. Upon the receipt of this communi- 


18 




cation a ^lort discussion^ in which many of the 
leading* men^ including Mr. Clay^ Mr. Calhoun, 
and others of high character, participated, took 
place in Congress, and, without exception, all who 
spoke expressed sentiments of a most friendly dis- 
position towards this country, stating a strong 
‘^opinion that the laws should be enforced, and that 
if, as they stood, they were insufficient, stronger 
powers should be given to the Executive.’’ 

Let me pause for an instant in my narrative to 
render justice to those truly great men, Mr. Clay 
and others, who, at a moment of national peril, caused 
by popular excitement and passion, threw all thought 
of their own momentary popularity to the winds, 
and—as every public man ought to do—regarded 
their public influence only as a sacred trust to be 
exercised, in such an emergency, for their country’s 
advantage.—Now I will use an hypothetical case. 
Let us suppose that, instead of the friendly response 
which we received from the American Government, 
the President had replied to Mr. Fox in these 
terms: — 

I hope the people and Government of the United 
Kingdom will believe that we are doing our best 
in every case to execute the law \ but they must 
not imagine that any cry which may be raised 
will induce us to come down to Congress with a 
proposal to alter the law. If this cry is raised for 
the purpose of driving the President’s Government 
to do something which may be contrary to the 


14 


dignity of the country in the way of altering our 
laws for the purpose of pleasing another Govern- 
ment^ then all I can say is that such a course is 
not likely to accomplish its purpose/^ 

Now this^ with the simple alteration of United 
States’^ for United Kingdom/^ this Housefor 
Congress/^ ^^Her Majesty’s Government” for 
the. President’s Government/’ this is the reply of 
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government^ three 
weeks ago, when an appeal was made to this House 
to obtain from us, for the people of the United States, 
the neutrality w^hich, under precisely similar circum¬ 
stances, we had received from them. I confess I 
should prefer, when these events come under the 
judgment of the historian, the award which will be 
given to the American statesmen. 

I wish now to draw your attention to what was 
done in consequence of that promise of the American 
Government. Why, notwithstanding that their 
Foreign Enlistment Act, as it stood, was much more 
stringent than ours, and gave greater f owers than 
ours now does, they passed a supplementary Act for 
two years, strengthening so greatly its provisions, 
that one could hardly believe that such arbitrary 
powers would have been given to the Government 
of the United States. (Cries of Hear, hear,” from 
the Opposition benches.) I hear cries of hear, 
hear,” of a rather doubtful tone from gentlemen on 
the other side—but let them remember that this Act 
was passed twenty-five years ago, when nobody 


15 




accused the Americans of submitting* to tyranny; 
and let it be recollected that this was done volun¬ 
tarily for our benefit. By this temporary Act which 
received the assent of the President on the 10th of 
March^ it was enacted :— 

That the several collectors, naval officers, sur- 
veyors, inspectors of customs, marshals, and de- 
puty-marshals of the United States, and every 
other officer who may be empowered for the purpose 
by the President of the United States, are hereby 
respectively authorised and required to seize and 
detain any vessel to be provided or prepared for 
any military expedition or enterprise against the 
territories or dominions of any foreign prince or 
« Power.” 

It gives them power to seize a vessel without any 
proof on oath, an absolute power of seizure on sus¬ 
picion, and a right to detain the vessel for ten 
days, during which they shall be able to give evi¬ 
dence on oath before a judge, and, in case they fail, 
the ship is to be released, but is to be liable to be 
seized again in case any cause should arise. And, 
to carry out this temporary Act, the whole power of 
the militia, and of the armed forces of the country, was 
placed at the disposal of these officers. This is the 
third instance in which the Americans have passed 
neutrality laws for the benefit of European States. 

But there was a fourth occasion on which an 
appeal was made to the Government of the United 
States. On the breaking out of the Crimean War 


16 


in 1854^ we sent a communication^ jointly with 
France^ expressing* a confident hope that the 
American Government would^— 

In the spirit of just reciprocity^ g*ive orders 
^^that no privateer under Russian colours shall be 
equipped, or victualled, or admitted with its prizes 
in the ports of the United States, and also that the 
citizens of the United States shall rigorously abstain 
from taking part in armaments of this nature, or 
in any other measure opposed to the duties of a 
strict neutrality/^ 

The satisfactory conduct of the American Govern¬ 
ment during the Crimean war has been so frequently 
referred to, that I need not dwell on the subject. I 
will not repeat the history of the proceedings in con¬ 
nexion with vessels supposed to be fitting out as 
privateers in American ports. We know that the 
building* of a ship of war, which was about half 
completed, for the Russian Government, was sus¬ 
pended at the commencement of the war, and that 
it was not completed until three years after the war 
was concluded. I have heard a whisper that it was 
suspended because the Russian Government could 
not find money for the completion of the ship y but 
does any one believe that story who remembers the 
millions which were at the same time being expended 
at Sebastopol ? There was another vessel called the 
Maury, which was suspected of being intended for 
the Russian Government, and was seized by the 
American authorities, at the request of our Consul 


17 




at New York^ under circumstances which showed a 
much g’reater activity and vig*ilance than we have 
exhibited in the case of the Alabama. But I will 
not refer further to these matters. 

Tlie deductions which we may fairly draw from 
these facts are^ first, that the American Government 
and people have, from the very formation of their 
Union, shown a willing*ness to maintain and enforce 
a strict neutrality in the wars which have been con¬ 
stantly taking* place between European States; and 
next, that they have done it under circumstances of 
the utmost diflSculty. It is easy enough to maintain 
neutrality where you have no feelings either way, 
but they did it in spite of their sympathies, and in 
opposition to their wishes. There can be no doubt 
that, in the case of the Canadian revolt, there was a 
strong feeling among the mass of the American 
people that a successful rebellion in Canada might 
have led to a friendly annexation with the United 
States. There is no doubt that the strongest national 
yearnings were attracted towards that struggle; and 
I again call the attention of the House to the fact, 
that in spite of these temptations to go wTong, the 
United States have uniformly gone right on this 
question. We may have had other grounds of com¬ 
plaint:—we may allege that the Americans enforced 
their neutrality laws with too much rigour against 
ourselves during the Crimean war. I think that in 
regard to our enlistments in America, they persisted 
in exacting redress from us in a manner that partook 

B 


18 


of unfriendly severity^ if not of direct hostility ; but 
in respect to the due observance towards us of their 
Foreig’n Enlistment Acts, I repeat again,—and let 
no one answer me with a vague statement of what he 
has heard somewhere or other,—I challenge any one 
to show me in all our diplomatic correspondence a 
despatch which complains of an unredressed griev¬ 
ance under those Acts. 

I have mentioned these circumstances in the 
hope that they may become generally known, and 
in order that they may bring the sentiments of this 
House and the public opinion of the country to a 
temper which shall incline us to act by the United 
States as they have acted towards us. If the 
motives which I have appealed to in this statement 
of facts will not have that effect, then I do not 
know that I ought to occupy another minute in 
trying to bring any other motives to bear upon the 
minds of my countrymen. I do not intend to 
appeal to your fears; that would be out of the 
question; but I will not sit down without saying a 
word or two with reference to the interest we have 
in the question. If a sense of obligation to a 
friendly country for its uniform observance of an 
honourable neutrality is not sufficient to induce us to 
pursue a similar policy, let us look at what will be 
the consequence of pursuing* another course. 

The hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor- 
General, in a speech from which I may not quote, 
as it was delivered in a previous debate this Session, 


19 


and which he has published as a pamphlet, laid it 
down that we have only to deal with municipal 
law, that the Foreig-n Enlistment Act was passed 
at our own will and pleasure, and that we may 
repeal it in like manner at our own pleasure. 
The Solicitor-General laid it down, broadly, that 
the Foreign Enlistment Act was simply a measure 
of municipal law which we mig’ht repeal at our own 
will and pleasure. Now, I join issue with the hon. 
and learned g’entleman, and I maintain that that 
Act is part of an international code, and that we are 
bound as distinctly to the United States, by the 
rules of honourable reciprocity, in this case as if 
treaty eng’agements existed. We have appealed 
to the Americans in our emerg’encies not to allow 
their citizens to molest us; beg-ging* them not to 
allow privateers to be fitted out; and when it is 
clear that there has been no violation of their law, 
we are, I contend, bound to observe the same 
honourable neutrality. 

The Solicitor-General has indeed laid down the 
rule that our neutrality may be maintained either 
by aiding both belligerents, or by assisting neither. 
The hon. and learned gentleman says, that if we 
choose to allow both parties to come and buy ships 
of war here, no infringement of our neutral position 
w^ould, as a consequence, take place. That may be 
an abstract legal truth; but what must we say of 
a statesman who stands up in the House of Com¬ 
mons and gives expression to such a dictum as that, 


20 


to be quoted hereafter at Washington? I am not 
going to discuss points of law with the hon. and 
learned gentleman; that would be an act of pre¬ 
sumption on my part. I will admits therefore^ 
that we may observe neutrality^ either by abstain¬ 
ing from assisting either party in the contest^ or by 
rendering assistance to both. Is that^ however^ let 
me ask^ a state of things which we ought to covet ? 
I should like to know from hon. gentlemen opposite 
what would be our fate in any of those numerous 
wars in which ^ye have been engaged^ and to the 
recurrence of which we are liable, if this doctrine 
were carried fully into effect? If, for instance, 
the little dark cloud which threatened a rupture with 
Brazil had burst upon our heads, America would, 
according to the theory of the hon. and learned 
gentleman, have been entitled to fit out vessels for 
the Brazilian government, to cruise in the name of 
that government, and with the commission of the 
Brazilian Emperor, against our commerce, provided 
only that the offer were made to build ships of war 
at the same time for us. 

But the subversion of the principle on which our 

Foreign Enlistment Act rests does not depend 
solely upon our adopting the line of policy to which 
the hon. and learned gentleman has, as I think, so 
unwisely referred. Can we, I would ask, look for 
the maintenance of the law relative to foreign 
enlistment in America, or elsewhere, unless we our¬ 
selves set the example of good faith? You have 


21 




not only in America, but in France, a most strin- 
g*ent law on this subject. I wrote to a friend in 
Paris to ascertain what was the mode of proceed¬ 
ing* adopted there in order to prevent vessels slip¬ 
ping* from their ports as the Alabama had done 
from ours, and I was told that they required no 
Foreign Enlistment Act there for the purpose. By 
a penal code—which I believe all the nations of the 
Continent imitate, more or less — any citizen of 
France, who, without the consent of the Govern¬ 
ment, commits an act of hostility against a foreign 
Power, by which the country incurs the risk of war, 
is liable to transportation. The law further pro¬ 
vides that anybody who fits out a ship of war, or 
does any hostile act, owing to which an enemy may 
inflict reprisals on a French citizen, will likewise be 
held subject to the same penalty. This, you may 
say, is very severe \ but then you want reciprocity 
with that country. The French do not ask you to 
pass a law in accordance with their model; but 
what both France and America will require is this, 
that you will, in the event of war, as effectually 
prevent privateers from going out and preying 
upon their commerce, as they prevent theirs from 
preying* on yours. You may choose any way you 
please to do it \ but surely you have too much 
common sense to imagine that you can induce 
America to abstain from reprisals in the future, 
unless you observe the laws of an honourable 
neutrality in her regard. 


Now is there^ let me ask, no way in which you 
can prevent ships of war from sailing from your 
ports, threatening, as they^ do, the commerce of a 
friendly country, all of them built in England, 
manned from England, armed and equipped from 
England, roaming the seas without any fixed goal, 
and marking their track by fire and devastation? 
That is the question to which you have to address 
yourselves; and unless you are prepared effectually 
to put down this system, the Foreign Enlistment 
Act will be, as the Hon. and learned Member for 
Plymouth said, a dead letter: and if it be made a 
dead letter here, most assuredly the same state of 
things will result elsewhere. - Who then, I should 
wish to ask, has the most to lose by such a revolu¬ 
tion in the maritime law of nations ? What pro¬ 
portion of the value of the ships and cargoes which 
float on salt water belongs to British capitalists ? 
The lowest estimate which I have heard formed of 
the value of this property afloat, by those who have 
instituted careful inquiries at the insurance oflSces 
and other quarters, shows that we have, upon an 
average, from £100,000,000 to £120,000,000 t 
ling worth of the property of British capitalists 
on the seas. Best assured no other country has 
£30,000,000 worth, and that you have nearly as 
much property at stake upon the ocean as all the 
rest of the world together. You have, moreover, 
10,000,000 people, in the year, to feed upon food 
brought from foreign countries. You receive three- 


23 


a S' 


fourths of the tea, and four-fifths of the silk from 
China; more than one-half the tallow and hemp 
from Eussia; there is more cotton, more wheat, 
more Indian corn, broug*ht to us than to all the rest 
of the world. You are so powerful here in your 
island home that, with the ordinary mode of war¬ 
fare, you can set the world at defiance; but the 
moment you be^in a war of reprisals on the ocean, 
your commerce is the most vulnerable of any. 

No, no !’^) Hon. g*entleraen who deny the truth 
of that statement do not understand the position of 
the commerce of England. But, be that as it may, 
is there, I would ask, nothing* which we can do to 
show our good faith in this matter? 

Is it not strange that any one should be found in 
this country, and especially in this House, claiming 
to be a reflective man, who would for a moment 
consent to range himself in favour of those who are 
committing such acts as those to which I have 
alluded, against the laws as well as the vital inte¬ 
rests of the nation ? I wish to see the public ranged 
on the side of law in this case, as well as in every 
Every one engaged in building a ship of 
wai', in violation of the law, is committing an offence 
subjecting him to the penal consequences of fine and 
imprisonment. Is there anybody so engaged ? If 
so, is there nothing we can do to show that we wish 
to put down this system ? The case of the Alabama 
is, perhaps, clearer than that of the Florida, or the 
Japan. The last-mentioned vessel was, however. 


24 


one not only built here for the Confederate Govern¬ 
ment, but manned by Englishmen^ surreptitiously 
conveyed on board the ship. In the case of the 
Alabama, Earl Eussell said that she escaped from 
our ports on the pretext of going' on a trip of plea¬ 
sure ; and he also states that he sent out orders to 
have this vessel stopped at Nassau. But if she was 
to be stopped at Nassau, why not elsewhere? It is 
said you cannot stop a vessel like that after the first 
voyage. My answer to the objection is, that the 
Alabama has never made a voyage at all; she has 
been cruising about, and never has had a destination 
or a home. But why, let me ask, did not the 
Government forbid the entry of this vessel into your 
own ports, known as she is to have left this country 
illegally, and to be manned by English sailors, in 
violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act? Would 
anybody have a right to complain of your taking 
that course ? Issue a proclamation to the effect that 
this vessel stole away from your port without clear¬ 
ance or register, and that, so far as British ports 
throughout the world are concerned, she is outlawed. 
If you were to do that, and other countries were, as 
I expect they would, to follow your example, you 
would soon put an end to such proceedings by 
making them unprofitable. 

The entire code of neutrality on which the Foreign 
Enlistment Act is based is now at stake. It is less 
than two centuries old. The ancients had no word 
to express neutrality in an international sense. In 


25 




the middle ag’es nations liardly recog’iiised the rights 
of neutrality. A war between two countries then 
meant a g’eneral war. A better state of things has 
gradually grown up ; and shall we, I would ask, by 
virtually repealing the Foreign Enlistment Act, be 
the first to go back to the barbarism of the Middle 
Ages? I cannot help thinking that this House, 
when it reflects on the facts of the case, will refuse 
to give its sanction to a retrograde policy which 
would be unworthy of this country, and a great 
crime against humanity. 


THE END. 




!U i-" . .- 


i*f '^aifr 


r- J-i ' ''-•■U'lys'f/f 'i/f,'» '• ■ -’'Jliid 


, r V. 

T ; ' iCrC 


■ " « . 
?^2 


"Vl?^*'--' **='■*' 

^ !;, ' ••K.-if !. *41^: .■ ‘; ■ '■;•>! 




•V * 










i ?-• 






r»’> .v% 


-. iV ■. .■< 

n, MW\ 


'V/iV.'-vCi,[<■.:■. 










■'W- 

*.'« * ■■’*'' §8 

Ens^r^ i 




w- 


SS4t 




'/ :- 

fi .- 


T'-.' 'IWf^ ■' 


"■■T ■/■• ■ W)(0 Y' ■ ■-• ..<Y' 





'-■ .'(! ■•„? ■> ■'■* *< - •■ .-j N. 

ISH 


XOfV A 

> ft* >>• '^' . . 

■-.'v ’■• ' 





IMPORTANT PAMPHLETS, Etc, 

RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY 



WILLIAM RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY. 


A LETTER TO LORD EBURY ON THE PRESENT STATE 

OF THE CHURCH. By the Rev. C. Nevilb. Price 6<i. 

A LETTER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR on LAW CON¬ 

SOLIDATION. By Sir John Nodes Dickinson, Kt. Price 1 a 

A FEW WORDS ON THE CLAMOUR FOR A REVISION 

OF THE LITURGY. By the Rev. C. Nevile. Price ^d. each, or 2s. per dozen. 

POLAND—A LETTER TO THE EARL OF ELLEN- 

BOROUGH. By General Count L. Zamoyski. Priced. 

BRAHMINS AND PARIAHS. An Appeal by the Indigo Com¬ 

mittee of India. Price l5. 

INDIGO AND ITS ENEMIES, or FACTS ON BOTH SIDES. 

By Delta. Price Is. 

BRITISH SETTLERS IN INDIA. Memorial delivered to the 

Secretary of State for India, in Answer to a Minute by the Lieut.-Governor ol 
Bengal, &c. &c. Price Is. 

TRIAL OF THE REV. JAMES LONG EOR THE PUBLI¬ 

CATION OF THE “NIL DURPAN,” &c. &c. Price Is. 

MISSIONARIES AND INDIGO PLANTING. Price ed, 
SPEECH OE THE RIGHT HON. R. LOWE, M.P. ON 

MOVING THE EDUCATION ESTIMATE IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. 
July, 11th 1861. Price Is. 

VENETIA. By Bonamy Price, Esq. Price I 5 . 

THE REVELATION. With a Short, Plain, Continuous Exposi¬ 

tion. By the Rev. S. Smith, Vicar of Lois Weedon and Rural Dean. Cloth, .3s. (id. 

THE RESPECTIVE DUTIES OF LANDLORDS, TENANTS, 

AND LABOURERS. An Address delivered to a Farmer’s Club. By the Hon. 
and Rev. Lord Sidney G. Osborne. Price Is. 

ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS. The 

Common-Sense of Competition. A Plea for an Open Civil Service. Price Is. 

COUNTY EDUCATION.’’ A Letter addressed to the Right 

Hon. the Earl of Devon. By the Rev. J. L. Brereton. Second Edition. Price Qd. 

A POPULAR VIEW OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. 

By A. J. B. Beresford Hope, Esq. Price Qd. 

A LETTER TO SIR CHARLES WOOD, Bart., G.C.B., Her 

Majesty’s Secretary of State for India, on the Policy of the Hon. J. P. Grant, 
Governor of Bengal, towards British Settlers, during 1860-61. Price 6d. 

THE ELECTION OE MR. LINCOLN. A Narrative of the 

Contest in 1860 for the Presidency of the United States. By Mons. C. Clarigny. 
Translated from the “ Revue des Deux Mondes.” By Sir Willoughby Jones, 
Bart. Price Is. 

SONS OP INDIAN OFFICERS. SANDHURST AND 

WOOLWICH. A Claim “That the Sons of Indian Officers should be admitted 
to the above Colleges upon the same terms as the Sons of Officers in the English 
Army and Navy,” set forth in a Correspondence with the War Department. 
Price Is. 

LORD BROUGHAM’S SPEECH ON LIFE PEERAGES. 

February 22, 1856. Price Is. 

THE IONIAN ISLANDS IN RELATION TO GREECE, 

with suggestions for advancing our Trade with the Turkish Countries of the Adriatic 
and the Danube. By John Dunn Gardner, Eso. Second edition. Price I#. 



Important Pamphlets, ^c. published by Ridgway, Piccadilly, , 

LECTURE on the' PRODUCTS and RESOURCES of b'rI- 

TISH INDIA. By Montague Gorb, Esq. Delivered before the St. James’s Lite¬ 
rary and Philosophical Society. Second Edition. Price Is. 

MANNING THE NAVY. VICE-ADMIRAL BOWLESES 

PAMPHLETS on NAVAL AFFAIRS, from 1815 to 1853, now first collected. 
With a Preface on the best Means of Manning the Navy. Price 6s bound in cloth. 

A MILITIA, OUR ONLY REAL NAVAL RESERVE. With 

Heads of a Bill for Raising a Naval Militia. By Admiral Bowles. Second 
Edition. Price 6d. 

LORD COLLINGWOOD’S MEMOIRS and CORRESPON¬ 
DENCE, PUBLIC and PRIVATE. By G. L. Newnham Collingwood, Esq. 
F.R.S. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. 12mo. Price 12s. 

“The portrait of one English worthy more is now secured to posterity.” 

Quarterly Review. 

“ We do not know when we have met with so delightful a book as this, or one 
with which we are so well pleased with ourselves for being delighted. Its attraction 
consists almost entirely in its moral beauty .”—Edinburgh Review. 

“ Having thus referred to Lord Collingwood's Life, I maybe allowed to say, that 
the publication of that volume is indeed a national good ; it ought to be in every oflicer’s 
cabin, and in every statesman’s cabinet.” 

Southey*s Life of Lord Nelson, New Edition, p. 348. 

THE SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE CAN¬ 
NING, corrected and revised by himself, with Memoirs of his Life ; illustrated by 
a fine Portrait, Facsimiles of his Hand Writing, a Plate exhibitive of his mode of 
correcting and revising his speeches, &c., in two important passages in the cele¬ 
brated one on Portugal. 6 vols. 8vo. Third Edition. Price £3. 12s. 

The late Right Hon. W. Huskisson, in a Letter to the Editor, alluding to the 
Work, says, “ It is a Work which is destined to convey to posterity the remains of his 
splendid talents as an orator—to exhibit his principles as a statesman—and to show 
with what energy and success he carried those principles into execution as a Minister of 
the Crown.” 

THE SPEECHES of tlie HON. THOMAS ERSKINE (after¬ 
wards LORD ERSKINE), when at the Bar, on Subjects connected with the Liberty 
of the Press, and against Constructive Treason. With Preface by the Rt. Hon. Lord 
Brougham. New Edit. 4 vols. 8vo. Portrait. Price £2. 2s. 

LOIS WEEDON HUSBANDRY. By the Author of «A 

Word in Season to the Farmer.” Bound in cloth. Price 2s Qd. Second edition. 

A WORD in SEASON; or, HOW TO GROW WHEAT with 

PROFIT. 16th Edition, corrected, with a Word or Two More to those who have 
Tried. Price Is. 

INSTRUCTIONS for GROWING ITALIAN RYE GRASS. 

By William Dickinson. Price Is. Second edition. 

JOHNSON and SHAWLS FARMER;S ALMANAC for 1862. 

Containing Lists of Fairs—Farmers’ Clubs—Agricultural Societies—and all Agricul¬ 
tural Improvements to the Present Time—With Lists and Prices of the best Im¬ 
plements and their Makers, &c. &c. &c.—the whole having been re-written for this 
year. Price Is sewed, and 2s bound and interleaved. 

THE NEW METHOD OF PLANTING, SETTING, or 

DIBBLING GRAIN, PULSE, MANGOLD, Sfc. &c. By SiGMA. Price Is. Third 
Edition. 

Now ready, in 2 vols. 8vo. price 24s boards, 

MEMOIRS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF GEORGE LORD 

LYTTLETON, from 1734 to 1773. Compiled and edited by Robert Phillimore, 
LL.D. 


WILLIAM RIDGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY; AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. 











Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






AW 








» > • . ft. t r' M ' ^ ^ * IS i 

■ ‘.J " 


‘ o 



► ' • 


rr 




I . 


TTj'-T.^ 




'I ♦ 


\ M 


I “ V 


.« * fr 




If* 


• t^ 


A/. 


1 - O- ’ r 




U a 


'I 


■i;: 




j? ■^' <• ■• . ; '•* i 


i ■• f % 


r\ 


' ’ I 




('■> 5 






^if# 


.s M 


.A 4 


-*1 


A 






r^T' 


» ' 




ts 


k* 


*: 


;• 




7 


L'^V 


"V 




r^. 


JfU 




- 


W 


M # 9 \ 


4'.*» 




i 


' I 


1 » 




« « 




-%■ 




>li 


> » 


- t:jiipwi..t^ Vi £-. .. V ' 




>4', 


‘ .’li' 


fSSSH 






^ ' tl’ ' ■ “ A 

’ ‘-yv-; 

L. w- ’ ’ '—/a 


ii 








# J 


ii 






(f 


t 


1^' 


•V-‘i 




It 


S'JZr. 


vv 


s. 


.L *1' 






yU - 




• I] 


• • I 


Lv 


u 


CV 


D 


if f 1 


VJ* 




VI 








r t 


ff 


5V. 


V » 


i'V 


'.\r- V 


> , 


t rf- 


. -i V 


V * 


« '» . ^ •• i i^f-., j _. ' ** f 

7n,^ 




■ 




xi. 




> 


■i. 


■' L. 


^ I. 


f .\ 


4> 








4, 


.■t 



























































